User talk:Melcous/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Melcous. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Barbara Lazaroff

Hi Melcous. I'm rather new to composing on Wikipedia and have too long been put off by the daunting code needed to cite references, so I wonder if you can help me on this, my first painful endeavor. I'm trying to figure out who removed the two sets of restaurants that Barbara Lazaroff owns and owned with Wolfgang Puck -- and how to get them back.They are listed on Wolfgang_Puck so there is no basis to remove them on her page. She did plenty of the work and history wipes her out. It's fair and legitimate that she be noted as owning them and/or having created and built them. The list varied from his because of ownership but there was an external reference to EVERY current restaurant as individually listed at https://wolfgangpuck.com. First someone didn't like them as inline links so they got removed and put in as External Links. Now the External are removed. I had a list of current and one of past. She designed them and deserves the credit! Can you please help me with this? Can you please review and undo the deletions of both the lists and the external links please?

I'm also at a loss as to why things on this page are considered not proven. Every statement has a reference. More than one per statement in fact. There's nothing on that page that couldn't be written by ½ of Beverly Hills or most of the true foodies in the world. She and WP are part of modern dining history.

Pinehouse Photography Club

Good morning. I know you and I got off to a wrong start. I know it's my fault for not reading the rules as a new b, creating a page on myself to start, then creating the PPC page and linking it to me. I'm sure if I made no reference to myself, this discussion wouldn't be happening and I wouldn't be in this situation. As a senior member of wiki, I would except more support and guidance if possible. Sometimes kindness goes a long way. This page was weak at start, and I should have saved it as a draft before publishing it too early and that's why it got put up for deletion. COI I realize is someone writing about friends, themselves, family, and because I originally linked it to me, I see the errors in my way. Now I know. But giving that facts and what happened, the fact still remains that the organization is notable and shouldn't be up for deletion. I appreciation the concern you have of my COI and hence read into what I can do, and will propose others to edit and make changes if and when necessary. Im new..no excuse but as I learn and read the rules, Im beginning to understand the process a bit more. Lastly, the page is good...almost all of it is quote/unquote from reliable references and shouldn't be deleted. I hope we can find resolution and peace and move on from this.--Dreerwin (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your message Dreerwin and for your understanding. You are right in that I could have shown more kindness. It is easy to get quite cynical here. There are many, many brand new editors who show up here and do what you did - creating articles about themselves or organisations linked to them. Most of them go away once they realise that wikipedia is not for self-promotion. The fact that you have stuck around suggests that you are not here for that reason, so I appreciate that. I would encourage you to take some time to edit articles that have nothing to do with you, making small changes for example when you see typos or mistakes, - it's a good way to learn the ropes here without things getting heated or feeling personal. Some really good editors have come in to help clean up the article in User:ThatMontrealIP; User:Spintendo and User:Walter Görlitz as a result of the discussion, which is great and how things are supposed to work. Because they have removed much of the problematic content, I will remove the Conflict of Interest tag. It looks clear that the consensus on the deletion discussion will be to keep the article too, which is good. As I've said previously, I'm happy to be wrong if that is the consensus, and in the end it will make the article a much better one because of the discussion, and you can move on to other things, and use the talk page as you've already done now if there are particular suggestions you have about that particular article. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Gasp!

The Pinehouse Photography club author (Dreerwin) turned out to be a sock! It's sad in a way, because she was really well intentioned, and I enjoyed helping her. However the article is 90% copyvio as far as I can tell. I left a message about that on Diannaa's talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP. Disappointing but not surprising - I left an AGF/sock warning on the Halkett account's talk page awhile ago and the response from Dreerwin was pretty suspicious. There were two IP addresses that also voted at the AfD that I would assume are also the same user 1 and 2 - not sure if they should be added to the SPI? It is a shame because the last interaction I had (above) seemed like things were getting on track. But the stuff with their website is a really poor look. Thanks for your work looking into it. Melcous (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the final story on it was that DreErwin was the founder of the club, and used Halkett as a sock at the AfD. Dreerwin admitted on their talk page that the IP account !votes came as a result of Dreerwin posting to the Pinehouse Photography Club Facebook page,which has something like 43K followers. Now that I can see the facts, basically everythign Dreerwin said was an, er, "deception". The original Pinehouse Photography Club was deleted as it was close to 100% straight copyvio; I have just recreated it as a bland and neutral page, with sources. Hopefully it's notable enough to survive. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CIGRE on Wikipedia

Greetings Wikipedia user. Just to let you know we recently update the WIKIPEDIA page for CIGRE as the organisation has updated its logo and scope of work. We will apply these updates again please do not roll the page back to the previous version as you did last time. The updates are official from the Central Office of CIGRE and accurate. I am the lead consultant of the brand and communications task force and communicating on behalf of CIGRE. I can provide the credentials and official contacts if you need, just drop me an email. Thank you in anticipation of your cooperation Kind regards Colin Knox colin@aspire.co.nz AspireNZ (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Melcous, I hope all is well! I have AFD'd the above article, warned AspireNZ on paid editing and opened a WP:COIN discussion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, love your work. I assume from your username we are on opposite sides of the world. Its nice to wake up and see others have been at work on this kind of thing while my side of the world was sleeping! Cheers, Melcous (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Eric Hughes

Trying to edit and add filmography and bio to Eric Brian Hughes page, more links coming in the future. I noticed you removed my edit from last night. Can I re-do? Also, what did I do wrong? Thanks ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluechip18 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bluechip18 and thanks for your message. The problem was that you added content without any sources. All wikipedia content needs to be verifiable by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources. See here for how to cite sources. (Note, if content you want to add cannot be sourced, it's a good indication that it doesn't belong in the encyclopaedia). Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. I have a source from the IMDb listing, on Hughes' new film, but having only contributed on here several times, I have difficulty adding sources in the proper format. Is there someone that can assist me? In other words, if I write it in a sandbox, my talk page or even here, and provide the source, could you or someone else assist me? Thanks kindly. Bluechip18 (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluechip18 IMDb is not a reliable source here because it is user-generated content, meaning anyone can add to it. So you would need something like a newspaper, book, journal etc. If you can find something like that I'm happy to help you add the content - you can ask here, or on the article's talk page. Cheers Melcous (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Can I use a press release announcing the movie? Thanks for your help Bluechip18 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bluechip18 Press releases are not independent sources - see WP:PRSOURCE. What we are looking for is an independent source writing about the movie and saying that he is in it. If that doesn't exist, I would suggest the best option is to wait until there is some coverage in the sources and then the information can be added at that time. This is one of wikipedia's core guidelines, that content should be verifiable by reference to reliable, independent, secondary sources. We are building an encyclopedia here so there is no rush. It might also be worth noting that a rush to add something can look promotional. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your cleanup at Michael W. Doyle following my WP:COIN report regarding the article ... and for doing the same for many other articles reported there. Peacock (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I get it

I really thought that How to Survive a Natural Disaster was something not really worth mentioning. Thankyou for pointing that out. I am just trying to help the Wikipedia Community by creating 'useful' articles to help people. So well yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I have deleted all information on it.

Question: How do you delete a page?

Thanks,LlewynYiming (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

LlewynYiming please do not create pages if you do not have sources to verify the content and particularly if you do not think they are worthwhile. I have (again) nominated the article for speedy deletion after you have blanked it, please leave it as is and it will be deleted by an administrator shortly. Thank you Melcous (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will remember the information for future articles I create.LlewynYiming (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Football International, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rugby and Gridiron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Melcous,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

What?

I mean, seriously, WHAT? A jaw dropper. Thanks for placing that note. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep Drmies, I'm wondering how many of the others are the same kind of thing ... Cheers. Melcous (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up a bunch of em. It's not surprising that the articles that listed the awards are almost invariably poorly written fluff. I sent a few to AfD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Melcous:, I am stalking your page as there is usually something good going on here. Mom's choice does not disappoint. I trimmed the award from perhaps ten articles. Doe we have a list of bogus award somewhere?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hah, yep a search for Mom's choice awards is proving to be a helpful pointer to bios that are largely puffery and may not be notable :) Melcous (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies and Melcous:, what about the Eric Hoffer Award? The nomination page ($60 please, and yes you can nominate your own book) says that nominating a book also qualifies your book for consideration for the Montaigne Medal, the da vinci eye and the First Horizon Award. I stopped counting the number of winners and honourable mentions for 2019 at about 150. I am kicking myself that I never thought of starting my own awards business, as I could have been sailing a yacht through the Carribbean by now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I am nominating MY book NOW. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, that was the first 20 hits for Eric Hoffer... Drmies (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not getting paid for the work

Thanks for your reply. It would be appreciated if you could help me solve this issue. I am not getting paid for any of the edits. I am doing it as a volunteer Kumargau (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about Wiki submission

Hello Melcous!

A page that we were attempting to submit for publication on behalf of a music artist got flagged by you and not allowed to be published (happened over a year ago). The reasoning was that it was 'about the person who wrote the article'. We actually created an account under the artists personal name and submitted the article on his behalf, and would like to pursue making the wiki live. We're ramping up production and our Google Knowledge Panel could benefit from the Wiki information. Here is a direct link to the knowledge page for verification purposes: https://g.co/kgs/h3Ee86

Please let us know what we can do to publish this Wiki :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksweyman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aleksweyman and thanks for your message. You need to understand a couple of things.

First, wikipedia does not exist to benefit your google knowledge panel or to benefit your production in any way. Those are promotional purposes whereas this is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles will only be accepted if they are about people demonstrated to be notable by the provision of independent, secondary sources and are written in a way that is neutral. Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone including their subject or that person's representatives.
Secondly, as someone who represents the artist, you need to carefully read wikipedia's guidelines on paid editing and be careful to abide by them. This is not optional, but a requirement you agreed to when you created an account here. In particular, it means that you should not directly edit the article, and that you must disclose your relationship to the subject of the article.
Finally, you have used the word "we" a number of times. Wikipedia accounts are not allowed to be shared, and should only be used by one individual. Others who want to edit need to create their own accounts, and they also need to abide by the Paid editing and Conflict of interest guidelines.

My advice to you would be to wait until the artist becomes notable enough that someone unconnected with them will write about them here.

Thanks Melcous (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Completed Edits/removal of Original Material

Melcous

Thank you for mentioning the original material issue on the Abdul Haqq Baker page . The page has been edited and issue has been corrected. Can you please review and then if satisfied remove the original material note.

Thank you again for your assistance.

Sincerely,

--Ddstellito (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ddstellito and thanks for your message. The edits to the page since I added that tag have unfortunately not addressed the issue of original research. Wikipedia works by including what reliable, independent, third party sources have said about a topic, rather than editors' own analysis or synthesis. At the moment, just to give two examples, the first paragraph under "Convert's Cognitive Development Framework" is unsourced, and reads as an editor's analysis of Baker's work. Another example is the second paragraph under "Youthful (formative/overzealous & idealistic) phase", which concludes wtih two references but these are to sources that do not mention Baker or his work but talk about why teens are more impulsive - this is synthesis, where an editor has drawn a connection and conclusion not made by a source itself. For this kind of content to be included, it would need a source that actually says this is significant to Baker's perspective. There are many more similar issues throughout the article. If you like to begin addressing them, please read the guidelines on original research carefully and then perhaps start with one section of the article at a time. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Melcous

Hello, I am not sure if you are aware of the Federal Database called PACER were all Federal cases are listed, but the uploaded document that was removed from Dr Bakers page is public information. In fact the case # 10-123-02, is listed in the wiki article. As a student researcher on terrorism it is very presumptuous to assume because you appear to be unaware of the United States Freedom of Information Act and the PACER Database which are both public you would make an assumption of a conflict. A person asked for proof so as a researcher I found a document that provided more accurate proof. Here is a link to hundreds of cases files such as the one you removed, that GW University has already done the leg work for. I hope you don't continue to punish independent researchers for the leg work they put in.

https://extremism.gwu.edu/cases

If you find the above information satisfactory I hope the image I provided can be restored. I worked with my department chair a long time researching this case. Ddstellito (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Melcous Sure, not a problem at all. When you pull information from Pacer or submit a Freedom of Information request the information comes to you. Meaning, you put in the leg work for the research so now you have the documentation, but it takes hours upon hours to find this information that are part of public court proceedings, as there are thousands of cases and PACER is not user friendly. It's possible I uploaded it incorrectly. I assumed because I obtained the information it would be considered my work. Maybe I am mistaken? So it's public information but not with an easy like you can cut and paste into Wikapedia. Below is an article written by the same George Washington University Terrorism staff about how difficult PACER is to navigate.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/20/pacer-court-records-225821

However, what GW University has done is created an entire separate public website that list all their independent research from Pacer and Freedom of Information request for other academic researchers to access. The Washington Post did a whole story on how hard and long it takes to pull this information from public sources. See excepts below.

[1]

"A self-proclaimed digger, Hughes is a master of PACER, a database of federal court documents that can be hard to navigate."

"Vidino and Hughes are joined by seven other staffers at GW and oversee more than a dozen nonresident fellows who are scattered across the country. Since the program began, the center’s researchers have uncovered about 20,000 pages of legal documents — pertaining to everyone who’s ever been arrested for international terrorism in the United States..."

In conclusion. As a small beginning independent researcher I tried to post the data I found on Wikapedia from the Jamie Paulin Ramirez case. I then take it because you are new to the terrorism field you have no idea how difficult it to find verifiable proof and that individuals don't freely give you this kind of information. I hope my explanation is sufficient.

Ddstellito (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ddstellito, I am one of Melcous' talk page watchers. I had a look at this article and it needs work. the main issue I can see at the moment, in addition to what Melcous has pointed out, is that it says little about the subject. I suggested a name change on the article's talk page. You can reply there rather than here, as more editors will see the discussion there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFICS

Thank you for your concern and attention. For your information, your edited version for the introduction section was an unnecessary edit. The honours and Malay titles for the introduction section is already fine as it is. In Malaysia, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (King of Malaysia) grants honours to recipients nominated by the Government of Malaysia as awards which are honorary and non-hereditary. These honours may also be revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or returned by the individual. Tun, Tan Sri, Dato' are all the titles given by Yang di-Pertuan Agong (Monarch) in Malaysia. For example, in United Kingdom, we use The Right Honourable for the former and current Prime Minister, and in Malaysia we use "Yang Amat Berbahagia" for the former Premier and "Yang Amat Berhormat" for the one who is in office. As you live in Australia, please kindly do some research before you make any changes. Thank you. AhmadFAiman (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

As noted on your talk page, please read and abide by the relevant section of the manual of style. It has nothing to do with who granted the titles or where I live. They can be discussed in the article but should not occur before the name except in a very few exceptional cases. Melcous (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

November 21- re misogyny speech

Hello, I'm Rachael. I am replying to the removal of my addition to the Misogyny Speech, I understand the removel for I added a external hyperlink into the opening paragraph something I have now learner is not allowed. I am still unsure of the protocol around this but I am hopping to re add my contribution to the page without the external hyper link. I feel that what I added into the body paragraph brings important insight into the overall history of the speech and reaction to it that needs to happen to help flush out the issue in a greater context. I wanted to make sure before hand that would not effect you. Thanks for the time, and have a great day!

Hi 1234rach1234 Rachael, thanks for your message and welcome to wikipedia editing! The content you were previously adding to the lead (opening paragraph) of the article I do not think was appropriate (the lead is meant to be a summary of the whole article and is not the place for that kind of detail). But I think the most recent additions you made (and then removed) elsewhere in the article are good - but they would need to be properly sourced. If this is something you don't know how to do, let me know if you'd like me to help - if you can point to the sources you are using, I would be happy to add back the content with the sources and you can see how that is done? Also, when you leave a message on a talk page (whether of an article or of another editor like here), please "sign" your post by including four tildes (~ this symbol) at the end. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

November 27 - WOWCUBE

Thanks for your work. I tried to make changes to the article WOWCube considering your comments. More details on the talk page Talk:WOWCube. Iexeru (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI, above user is a sock. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Rollback ambiguities

This last change here would needs a rollback I think, really strange to remove so much references at a single time, then add a template of missing references... Thanks.167.250.176.78 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have not edited that article, and Ivanvector's edit summary gives a clear explanation. Melcous (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Proxy blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Lee Nickrent

Hi @Melcous: I largely wrote the article for Daniel Lee Nickrent. And yes I did use his publicly available resume. I was hoping you might edit the article to remove the things you find objectionable. And I think if you check, you will find that Dan may have contributed only the tiniest bit. My interest is in Loranthaceae which is why I started (and wrote the larger part of) the article. I don't believe there has been a conflict of interest in its writing. It would be nice to remove those tags... MargaretRDonald (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rosalind Ridley page

I've edited the page on Rosalind Ridley, including citations and deleting content that I didn't see an external source for. I think we're okay to remove the COI tag, so am checking in before I do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepitine (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV at Draft:Bruno Reversade

Hi. Can you please take a look at Draft:Bruno Reversade and share your thoughts on how WP:NPOV could be addressed? This is a properly stated conflict of interest contribution. I understand that writing about academic achievements could sound promotional, but I also tried to keep it neutral and used "promotional" language only where it was fact based. As an example, Reversade was indeed the first scientist based outside Europe to win the European Molecular Biology Organization Young Investigatorship Award and his discoveries on splitting embryos were indeed "landmark discoveries". Would really appreciate your advice on this. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!

Hello, Melcous! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Abel Azcona

You edits here and here cause citation errors in the article Abel Azcona by removing harv anchors. I would ask you to comply with WP:BRD, whereby if an edit is reverted then it should be discussed not simply reverted again, which is the start of edit warring. --John B123 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I gave the lede a small edit, and trimmed some other material. I removed the PhD studies section. We are her to provide quality, in-depth summaries of the subject. We are not here to list every last thing known about the person. I have never seen a section in a an article titles "PhD theses" on a subject; it clearly does not belong in the article. As it is there is way too much peripheral information.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I added a section to the article talk page regarding the PhD list. The article talk page should be where this discussion continues if it does.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ThatMontrealIP, appreciate your work as always. Melcous (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

B.J. Fogg

Thanks, Melcous, for your great help on editing this page. I'm new to editing, so apologies for asking but do you know how to remove the sub-title "American psychologist" that appears for this article on mobile? I see it on the Wikipedia app but for some reason it doesn't appear when I am on the desktop and I cannot find where to edit this sub-heading. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F7F:F3D0:E074:24D9:B632:3EAE (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the description in the wikidata item see here which is where it can be edited. Or I believe you can override that using the Template:Short description. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

David L Heymann Page

Dear Melcous Thank you for letting me know about the problems with my page update for David L Heymann. I am a first-timer with this, so was unaware of the protocol. I have looked through the talk page and the other bits you referred to and I am not sure what I have to do next to get the page updated. Eg. I couldn't work out what I need to do on the COI thing, if anything. Am not particularly technically savvy. Does knowing him create a conflict of interest? Does being colleagues? Do I have to fill out a COI form? I understand that I need to request the update through the talk page rather than direct update, which seems easy to do, but I didn't want to have more problems after that if there is something else I need to do. I am a colleague of David's and with his retirement I thought it would be a nice thing to do to update his wikipedia page, because it is grossly out of date and not accurate and I thought the page does not properly reflect his contributions to global health. I am not being paid for this, and have not ever been paid by David. He is not a client. We have been colleagues for a number of years at Chatham House (He was staff, I am a self-employed consultant there), and as editors of the Control of Communicable Diseases Manual and I know a lot about his contributions to global health both as a former journalist who covered global health and later as a colleague of his, and therefore considered myself well placed to update the page about him.

Please can you let me know what I need to do next? thanks Emma Ross EMMALROSS (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

David L Heymann Page

Dear Melcous, Thanks for the info. I will do that. Emma EMMALROSS (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Mayer

Hi Melcous Thanks for your message. I don't have time to muck around. I am updating Wendy Mayer's page; it is my first time editing and it is the only item I plan to update. Could please tell me which source is not reliable? (I am happy to report to universities that wikipedia editors think their pages are unreliable). Your linked guidelines do not make it self evident. Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAuth (talk • contribs) 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

NewAuth can you please explain why you don't have time to muck around and are only planning to edit this one article? Do you have a connection to Mayer? If so, you need to read the conflict of interest guidelines and be sure to abide by them, including not editing the article directly. The main question is about sources being independent of the subject, hence the template request "third party" sources (that is, those not associated with the subject of the article). It is also not acceptable here to editorialise or add your own research, for example words like "paradigm shifting" could only be included if a secondary source is cited that actually says that. I have made some more edits to the article explaining some of the issues in the edit summaries. Thank you Melcous (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Page for Wendy Mayer

The original page was blatantly wrong. I was asked to update it as part of a larger project. I did as I was asked; I never bother with wikipedia myself. You then proceeded to remove most of my updates without any justification and have even asserted that academics and academic institutions are not credible sources (chutzpah!!!) as well as accusing me of nefarious motivations. You have now removed most of Mayer's career and left a very misleading presentation, just as bad - worse - than the one which needed correction. Somewhat ironic given you are an editor. Thank you for demonstrating the value of wikipedia. Enjoy your day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAuth (talk • contribs) 22:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Reply from my page.

Copied from my page:

Reply: Hello Melcous.

Please indicate where any information I have provided is inaccurate.
Instead of marking citation needed, you have instead assumed certain things about me, my motivation and about the subject. In my view, that is not editing, that is thought policing. May I please ask you to stop such unfounded accusations?
You state that third party academic or publisher sites about the subject are "too close" without explanation. In what way are they too close? Academic work is peer reviewed so you would expect acknowledgements and assessments of a scholar's work to come from other scholars or academic institutions.
By the same token, appointments are announced on relevant institutions' websites or their news organs. All organisations do that. The local charity in Portland doesn't announce appointments to a university in Paris, the university in Paris does.
I also looked at other bios of living scholars and I have used the same sorts of sources.
As far as I am concerned, if one outlines a person's academic career, you put in all relevant data not leave gaps because those gaps are in themselves misleading. I have provided third party evidence of the person's career to support what is on their online CV. In any case I also hold that a person's publicly available CV is an appropriate (and sufficient) source for outlining their career. If you think it isn't then you (and all wiki editors who hold the same view) are effectively calling that person and the thousands of other academics who have a publicly posted CV unreliable and/or a liar and that is HIGHLY libelous in my view and I for one do not intend to make such offensive assumptions or unfounded accusations.
Ditto if you think that academic institutions publish untruths on their websites when they announce appointments etc.
So again, on what basis do you make such evaluations and accusations? I see nothing in the wiki guidelines that prevents me from citing these sources
Even when I provide sources you remove them. For example, I noted that this scholar is frequently acknowledged by new and emerging scholars and linked to two third-party examples of such acknowledgements (I can link many more) but you removed them!

   So in summary:

---the article that was on wikipedia before I rewrote it was blatantly wrong and entirely unsupported and yet those errors and omissions were never flagged by wikipedia editors; ---when I attempted to update and correct the entry, you removed information instead of flagging citation needed; removed information with supporting evidence from third parties; selectively edited this person's career path; failed to adequately explain your actions or provide proper examples of what is acceptable and/or why sources did not meet wiki guidelines; accused me, and indirectly the subject, all academics and academic institutions, of nefarious motivations. I do not know who you are or what your status is but since you are unable to properly explain to me what the problem is with my updates and sources, could you please pass this on to someone who can? Thank you.

- - UPDATE: No further correspondence please. I have referred this up the line**** — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAuth (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

NewAuth there are plenty of noticeboards where you can request help editing here if that is what you mean by "referring up the line". Asking me on your talk page to refer you to someone else and then requesting I not correspond with you makes it difficult for me to respond and I'm not sure if anyone else will see what you have written there unless you ask them. (As this is my talk page, it is not up to you whether I reply here). In response to your comments, I have not made any assumptions about you, I have asked a pretty standard question here when a new editor focuses on one particular article and includes resume-like content, which is whether you have a conflict of interest. The "resume" concern seems to be a pretty key misunderstanding in the article - wikipedia does not exist to "outline a person's academic career." It is to write an encyclopedic article based on what reliable, independent, secondary sources say about them. If content cannot be verified in that way, it should not be included in the article. You should also note that what you did here making an editorial comment within the article commenting on another editor is complete unacceptable - do not do that kind of thing again or you may be blocked from editing here. As you have expressed a desire not to communicate with me, I will make a request on the conflict of interest noticeboard for other editors to get involved in this question. Thank you Melcous (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep Adedayo Ojo

I believe this is a fresh page being developed as I'm not aware of the previously deleted similar page. If this is the same page that was deleted, kindly keep this one as it's being developed to bring it to Wikipedia standard. Adedayo Ojo is a notable public Relations professional and a journalist who has published books and articles in national newspapers. He's the vice president of Nigeria's foremost PR professional body. He has helped Nigeria government in its rebranding Nigeria campaign. He was head of ExxonMobil PR at its headquarters in Texas USA. He's CEO of several corporate organizations including Caritas Communications. Please keep the pages. Kind regards. Gideens (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Melcous-requesting assistance

Hello Melcous, This is my first time on Wikipedia... I logged on for the sole purpose to ask for your assistance on my friend's "Linda Cooper (television host)" wikipedia page that you edited. After reviewing the edits page there are two issue that I see need to be clarified. The image on the page was removed citing "copyright issues" with Canamedia as the image owner. This is entirely false information as Linda Cooper owns the image in question and in fact provided the image to her distribution company Canamedia for publicity and distribution purposes for her tv show. It states it was removed because it is owned by Canamedia and that is 100% incorrect. In addition, a notification was placed citing payments were made in creating this page and this too is false information as no payment was made by her....in fact, she WISHED she could have hired someone to write a better detailed page as much is left off but SHE DID NOT make any payments to be on Wikipedia. I am not able to make any edits to her page as it would be a conflict of interest, which is why I am contacting you directly on her behalf to offer clarification and provide you any necessary documentation required to reverse these edits. I look forward to hearing back from you. Please advise thank you. Warren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenwiki007 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Warrenwiki007. And thank you for disclosing your own conflict of interest and not directly editing the article. If there is information in the article that is incorrect or missing, and you can point to reliable, independent, secondary sources that verify this, the best thing to do is to place an edit request on the talk page (and the easiest way to do this is to use Template:Request edit) and someone will come and have a look. There are a few other things that need to be cleared up.

It does not matter whether it was the subject of the article herself or someone else who paid the editor, if it was undisclosed paid editing then that is not allowed here and needs to be cleared up. The template was added by Dexxtrall due to the editing of a company called "Pro Creative Writers" and the editor Vandieou who created the article. That will need to be sorted out with them.
There was another editor, Mike1turner who made large changes to the article without references and appeared to also be someone with a conflict of interest - do you have a relationship with them?
Finally, with regards to the image, it was removed because the proper permissions needed here by wikipedia were not given. There is a specific process for the copyright holders of images to go through to make images available here and this was not followed. See WP:IUPC for more information.

Thanks Melcous (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I shared your information with Linda and she replied as follows- Several years ago she was told a PR company that worked with her distribution company was writing various Wikipedia pages on the shows/hosts in their TV show catalog. She had nothing to do with the creation of her Wikipedia page and there was no money exchanged as far as she knows. She asked Canamedia who that person was to find out more details and was told that person is no longer with the PR company. As for the second person mentioned Mike1turner she has no idea who that is and neither do I. Regarding the image here are the exact details of where and how the image was taken- The image in question was one taken on a beach in Barbados from Linda Cooper's actual cell phone while on location shooting Season One in the Caribbean back in 2017. Specifically, Linda asked someone behind the scenes to take images using her own cell phone. That specific image was used over a dozen times for show publicity provided by Linda Cooper herself submitted to many sites including Canamedia. It is 100% owned by Linda Cooper and would be considered public domain as you will find it located anywhere the Travel Time with Linda tv show is publicized. Hopefully this clarifies things... at this time she does not wish to do a template request edit as she doesn't want to add further issues by mistake. Please if you can reinstate the image and remove the notification. Thank you for your assistance. Warren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenwiki007 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Warrenwiki007, it is not as simple as asking me to reinstate the image and remove the template - I'm not going to do either of those things. Regarding the image, I can't "reinstate" it, it has been deleted because the copyright process required here was not followed. It would be up to the copyright owner to comply with the process in re-uploading it. Regarding the template, that is there because the article was created by an undisclosed paid editor against wikipedia rules. You can ask the editor who put the template there if they are willing to remove it, but it probably also means someone needs to take a look at the content and make sure it is all verifiable and written neutrally, and may also involve an assessment of whether Linda meets wikipedia's notability criteria. As I said previously, you are welcome to make specific requests about the content on the article's talk page. Melcous (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Melcous, As I stated before I am new to Wikipedia and quite honestly am baffled by the process. It appears you have made further edits discrediting Ms. Cooper's status, such as stating 24-7 Star was the recipient winner of the shows Telly Award and not Linda Cooper. For your information Linda Cooper owns 24-7 Star. This is her production company for her TV show and she is the Executive Producer, Creator and Host of the tv show Travel Time with Linda. Here is proof to clarify this: https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0800249823 https://trademark.trademarkia.com/travel-time-with-linda-cooper-87360000.html It is very disheartening to see her credibility questioned. Ms. Cooper worked very hard to earn this award. Please correct this revision and should you require further proof regarding anything else cited I ask you to please contact me for any further clarification you require. As for the image....Linda Cooper is the copyright owner so she cannot re-upload the image herself due to the conflict of interest clause so please advise how to accomplish this to comply with your copyright process. May I submit it to you? And finally, regarding the editor who created the page, as I've already shared Ms. Cooper has tried to reach out to them but he no longer works for the PR firm hired by Canamedia so that leads to a dead end ... perhaps you could provide another alternative to remedy this - I appreciate your assistance. Thank you. Warren — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenwiki007 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Warrenwiki007, as I have now said multiple times, the appropriate page to be asking questions about the article is on its talk page, not here. That is what editors with a conflict of interest are asked to do. I am a volunteer here like most other editors, and I am not trying to discredit anyone. I was actually trying to help with the issues caused by the Paid editing. All claims need to be properly sourced, meaning that for an award to appear in the article there needs to be a reliable, independent, secondary source that actually says that the subject of the article won that award. Your comments here suggest that you may be misunderstanding what wikipedia is. An article about someone, in this case Linda Cooper, is not owned by that person and does not exist to either 'credit' or 'discredit' them, but as an encyclopaedic article to present relevant, factual information as verified by independent sources. If such sources are not available, then the information doesn't go in the article - that has nothing to do with things like how hard someone feels they have worked or what they want the world to know about them - they can use their own website for that. Please do not reply further here. If you can provide appropriate secondary sources (and please carefully read the guidelines I have now linked to multiple times - what you have provided above are primary sources), then feel free to do so on the article talk page. And for the third time, you are welcome to ask the editor who placed the Paid editing template about removing it, but I will not do so until the issues are resolved, and you have now made bad faith accusations against me in my attempts to contribute to doing that so I'm more than happy to step away and leave you to it. Thank you Melcous (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Kindly lift the tags

Hello Melcous, hope you are doing great. I left messages on your talk page but have not heard from you. I want to inform you that a number of editors have worked on the article "NECLive" and advert like contents have been comprehensively removed from the article. I am happy that you flagged it for those issues and I have learnt a lot from it. My next articles will certainly be better and encyclopedic than the previous ones as I continue to learn from you. Kindly lift the tags and review the article so that it can go live. I wish I could have direct discussion with you rather than here on the talk page. Thank you for helping me to be a better editor here. I await your response with much respect appreciation. Kind regards. Gideens (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Akgideens thank your for your message. This is the way to have discussions with editors here, via talk pages. There are still problems with the NECLive article. I have just removed some content that was not supported by the sources used (which did not mention NECLive at all) and was not written neutrally. There are still quotes in the article that are unsourced and read promotionally. Other articles you have edited have similar issues - content in an encyclopedia needs to be factual, verifiable by reference to independent sources and written in language that is neutral. If it is not, maintenance templates flagging these issues are used to encourage other editors to help fix them. Melcous (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @melcous. I studied several entertainment related articles on Wikipedia to understand how entertainment articles are written before creating NECLive. From my research I understand that many of them make comparisons and rating to show performance which may appear promotional. Many entertainment related articles I have read on Wikipedia do not have as much citations as other subjects. I am learning to edit here and it takes a gradual process to become a better editor here. Several editors have done some work on the article especially the areas they thought should be removed but if you insist on making it perfect once and for all, it means the entire article will go down at once. I plead that you let this article go live so that other editors can continue to work on it. Once again thanks a lot for your work. Best regards. Gideens (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Akgideens, one of your earliest edits acknowledged that you are paid to do PR and social media management, yet you have not acknowledged that you have any conflict of interest in your edits here - that in itself is problematic. You should also see WP:OSE - just because there are problems with other articles is not a good enough reason to leave them in this article. The core guidelines of wikipedia are the kinds of things I have pointed you to previously - verifiability, notability and neutrality. I have no idea what you mean by "the entire article will go down at once" - the article simply has maintenance templates on it to flag that there are issues and to encourage other editors to pay attention to them. Melcous (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)